You just have this childish word 'evil'. — Bartricks

Yeah, I know, "evil" too immature a concept for grownups to think about. But I also know this. You who claim to know a lot - more than me - refuse to answer a simple question, after refusing to answer some not-that-simple questions, being instead dismissive, deflecting, mocking, condescending, offensive - anything at all not to answer. So you're a weasel. Being thus uncivil, you are not entitled to civility. So FUCK YOU, weasel. And that will be my reply to you until and unless you rejoin reasonable discussion. Questions asked, not answered, pending. Your move, weasel .

But you professed ignorance and retorted with the rhetorical question as to what the English word "is" was — Apollodorus

Why do you think it was a rhetorical question? I think you either do not know, or are not paying attention, to what "is" means. And if you will revisit the brief post in which my question appears, you will see how I framed it for you. In other words it's a fair question. Answer if you can.

I know. Sometimes I don't follow my own advice, but when I don't I end up smelling like the shit I am trying to clean up.

I think you either do not know, or are not paying attention, to what "is" means. — tim wood

That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. You either don't know or you're not paying attention to your own statements. Otherwise, why would you ask me what the English word "is" is?

And if you aren't paying attention to your own statements, how are you going to pay attention to other people's statements and have a discussion with them? It doesn't make sense.

Besides, since you've already lost the argument, there is no point. However, just out of curiosity, how do you know that God isn't omnibenevolent and that you are more omnibenevolent than him? Why is this so difficult to answer?

You sound like you're a tantrumy brat and not a proper adult.

No one can know what God wants so morality is still dependent on argument. Theism does not offer any certainty over atheism. All positions come down to arguing a case for one particular moral view or another. — Tom Storm

You're ignoring the obvious fact that believers hold the scriptures to be revelatory of what God wants and my be certain in their faith. Certainty is nothing more than a state of mind.

why would you ask me what the English word "is" is? — Apollodorus

Because your usage causes the question. But by now all you've done is demonstrated your ability to destroy a discussion. It's clear that is your interest, So FUCK YOU too, weasel. No civility for weasels.

They're my favorites among the symphonies, but I've never thought of them quite that way. I prefer his chamber music, generally--chamber music in general, I suppose--but that doesn't make me a minimalist, I believe. Quietist, perhaps. — Ciceronianus the White

I love Brahms, sorry I was just trying to be humorous there with the gland comment, given people's need to parse experiences into categories. Both symphonies work just the same way on me to be honest. You've gotta love that violin concerto too, no?

Because your usage causes the question. But by now all you've done is demonstrated your ability to destroy a discussion. — tim wood

lol How can I destroy a "discussion" that never existed? You have provided no definition of terms, no proper arguments, you totally ignored the other side's counter-arguments, you claimed to be more omnibenevolent than God without explaining how you know that, you professed ignorance, and you claimed to be unable to understand the very simple English word "is".

Even a three-year old could have told you from the start that you have no chance in a million of winning this debate. You should have demonstrated some decency and honesty and conceded defeat from the start instead of wasting people's (and your own) time.

You've gotta love that violin concerto too, no? — Tom Storm

I concur. Brahms isn't bad at all if you know how to listen with the proper attitude. But I tend to prefer Vivaldi followed by Gregorian chants. After which I like to immerse myself in the book Capital by one Karl Marx. After ten years I'm still at page 2. But it has the singular advantage of putting me to sleep rather fast.

I think I got to page 5 but I don't remember a thing....

I think I got to page 5 but I don't remember a thing.... — Tom Storm

I think that's the idea. Great book though. Would highly recommend it, honestly.

They're wrong. — jorndoe

Of course they are.

How can I destroy a "discussion" that never existed? — Apollodorus

They were your claims and your terms that I was asking you about, fucking weasel.

They were your claims and your terms that I was asking you about — tim wood

That's exactly what I'm saying. I asked you about your terms and your claims but you claimed not to know, you produced a dodgy definition of something, and you asked some incoherent questions about the English word "is" when you could have just googled it instead. If that isn't a rhetorical question intended to deflect attention from the fact that you've lost the argument, I don't know what is.

Anyways, just for future reference, I think you should try and present your arguments more forcefully, otherwise people might get the impression that you aren't taking your own arguments seriously. And if you don't take your own arguments seriously, why should anyone else, no?

Anyways, just for future reference, I think you should try and present your arguments more forcefully, otherwise people might get the impression that you aren't taking your own arguments seriously. And if you don't take your own arguments seriously, why should anyone else, no? — Apollodorus

Weasel words from the fucking weasel. Anyone interested in the truth of the matter needs merely review the thread.

Purely? Relativistic? Human? FIrst: make your argument. Second: if true, then why even think in terms of omni-benevolence/omnipotence of God? — tim wood

1) make an argument. -check. (Do I need to define my terms? I figured they, were cut and dry.)

2) because humans have a relentless compulsion to think in terms of good and evil, and it's easy to justify one's own morality if one can affiliate it with some absolute criterion.

But the qualities of God surpass all human understanding, and ideas like omnipotence/omni-benevolence are weak attempts at comprehending the paradoxical and ineffable nature of God - it is merely humans projecting their own concepts of causation and morality onto something beyond their grasp. It is here, where the intellect fails, that faith becomes relevant for the believer. I would argue that until a religiously inclined person has resigned himself to pure faith, he is not a true believer, but a pagan.

Is morality not a human construct? I've never seen evidence of its existence in nature, independent of human judgment. Perhaps you can enlighten me by pointing out something moral that is not based on a human jugdment. Then I might be able to see how morality is not a human construct. Until then, morality is clearly and irrevocably a human construct, as any intellect capable of thinking about it for more than five minutes would and should realize.

There is nothing inherently or absolutely evil about genocide. — Merkwurdichliebe

No evil people doing evil things? Just the boys being boys having some fun? Maybe some folks get hurt, but who cares? And anyway they're not important . And you're down with that, yes? No evil?

I'll bet you could do your own thought experiment in the privacy of your own mind that would convince you that evil is real and exists, and that in absolute terms.

But this I mostly agree with.

it is merely humans projecting their own concepts of causation and morality onto something beyond their grasp. It is here, where the intellect fails, that faith becomes relevant for the believer. I would argue that until a religiously inclined person has resigned himself to pure faith, he is not a true believer, but a pagan. — Merkwurdichliebe

But you refer to the paradoxical nature of God. You must know, then, who or what God is. What is God? My answer is that God, in the various forms assigned is, is a regulative idea of some value when properly understood, and even quite dangerous and evil when improperly understood.

Or, if you have God existing somehow, please make clear how.

I find the notion absurd, that any particular state of morality might require a specific acquiescence of reason. While religious indoctrination does indeed seem to be more prolific (and successful) amongst populations of the more intellectually disadvantaged, and disadvantaged in general, the variety of contributing factors that help determine how well religious indoctrination "sticks" is a bit more complex than is asserted in the OP.

I was fortunate, having been raised by an ultra-religious mother amongst her ultra-religious family (grandpa was a preacher at one point, for just one example), and having been embarrassingly indigent for almost all of the time before I got my first job (thanks Pizza Hut), there was nearly every possible contributing factor in place for me to follow suit; and yet, here I am, decades later with a well-developed synthesis of atheism and agnosticism. Now, I'm not saying that organized religion is appealing to stupid people because they dread having to search for answers to philosophical, abstract, and complex problems and issues on their own, but I'm not not saying that either.

Just deleted a paragraph. I recognize that my loquacious comment here is veering off into monologue territory.

Is morality not a human construct? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes. Morality is not a human construct. Some things are. My house, my trousers, my money. And some things aren't. Morality being one.

I've never seen evidence of its existence in nature, independent of human judgment. — Merkwurdichliebe

Jeez, why oh why don't they teach philosophy in schools?? You probably know another language and some algebra, but no philosophy, right? Unbelievable. Ethics is, by its very nature, the most important topic possible, yet they don't teach it in schools, with the result that it is only a tiny philosophical elite who know that morality is not a human construct (and we've known it for thousands of years). The rest of you are fated by your ghastly over-confidence and ignorance to spend the rest of your lives convinced - utterly convinced - that morality is a human construct on the basis of incompetent reasoning. I'd feel sorry for you if ignorance wasn't such a cozy blanket.

Now I will enlighten you if you want, for I have gobs and gobs of expertise and I can assure you you're wrong about pretty much everything where morality is concerned. But it will be very unpleasant for you - you do realize this?

:D Just a couple of observations:

Yes. Morality is not a human construct. Some things are. My house, my trousers, my money. And some things aren't. Morality being one. — Bartricks

No argument, no justification, bare assertion.

Jeez, why oh why don't they teach philosophy in schools?? You probably know another language and some algebra, but no philosophy, right? Unbelievable. Ethics is, by its very nature, the most important topic possible, yet they don't teach it in schools, with the result that it is only a tiny philosophical elite who know that morality is not a human construct (and we've known it for thousands of years). The rest of you are fated by your ghastly over-confidence and ignorance to spend the rest of your lives convinced - utterly convinced - that morality is a human construct on the basis of incompetent reasoning. I'd feel sorry for you if ignorance wasn't such a cozy blanket.

Now I will enlighten you if you want, for I have gobs and gobs of expertise and I can assure you you're wrong about pretty much everything where morality is concerned. But it will be very unpleasant for you - you do realize this? — Bartricks

"You dumb, me smart, I know" takes up 87% of the post, still nothing shown, topically content-free (184 wasted words).

Anyway, carry on, never mind me, nothing to see here.

No argument, no justification, bare assertion. — jorndoe

I've got an argument and if you go through my comments you'll find it. But like I say, you're too ignorant and confident to be worth arguing with. I'm confident and not ignorant - it's an important difference.

No evil people doing evil things? Just the boys being boys having some fun? Maybe some folks get hurt, but who cares? And anyway they're not important . And you're down with that, yes? No evil? — tim wood

I can handle evil people doing evil things. It is the good people doing evil things that breaks my lil ole hart.

Hurt? yes, some people say they care, others pretend to care, and a few probably do actually care, who knows. Yet, harm does not equate to evil without some decent rhetoric and a dash of bullshit. However, I never said morality was unimportant, and I'm not down with the notion that it is "unimportant", I'm simply approaching the topic extemporaneously.

I believe that human beings have every justification to identify and condemn those so called evils which are destructive towards relatively peaceful and harmonious coexistences between them. However, morality is still a human construct. At the level of the religious, there is, as Kierkegaard pointed out, a teleological suspension of the ethical, for no other reason than that the demands of one's faith are unconcerned with the humanly constucted ethical sphere of existence (nevertheless, I admit is a critical and infinitely important component of being human).

I'll bet you could do your own thought experiment in the privacy of your own mind that would convince you that evil is real and exists, and that in absolute terms.

Yes, but that still doesn't make evil absolute, objectively speaking, outside of the confines of my mind. For myself, I have the capacity to make anything absolute, whosoever has the authority to stop me? But to others, my "absolutes" will likely appear as complete bullshit (like most of what is posted on this forum :blush: ), because I, the subject who determines my own absolutes, I have no authority over the relativism of objectivity.

Yes. Morality is not a human construct. Some things are. My house, my trousers, my money. And some things aren't. Morality being one. — Bartricks

You must not believe in eternal forms, correct? I, personally, don't not believe in eternal forms. Therfore, if eternal forms is the case, and we can demonstrate its absolute certainty, then we should have no problem agreeing that morality is absolute. Good and evil would then be absolutely identifiable by every adquately eqiupped moral agent, with no disagreement, just like a table or house can correctly be identified by a child to its teacher, with no disagreement. I can accept that position. Unfortunately, when I look, I cannot see evidence of that in the world. Perhaps you have some examples to show me what I'm missing.

Jeez, why oh why don't they teach philosophy in schools?? You probably know another language and some algebra, but no philosophy, right? Unbelievable. Ethics is, by its very nature, the most important topic possible, yet they don't teach it in schools, with the result that it is only a tiny philosophical elite who know that morality is not a human construct (and we've known it for thousands of years). The rest of you are fated by your ghastly over-confidence and ignorance to spend the rest of your lives convinced - utterly convinced - that morality is a human construct on the basis of incompetent reasoning. I'd feel sorry for you if ignorance wasn't such a cozy blanket. — Bartricks

You've been alive for thousands of years?...cool!

Who is this ill-fated and overlyconfident ignorant "you" that you refer to? I thought I heard some whisperings of this group on a you tube clip of Fox News, but I paid it no mind. Are they the ones responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic?

Seriously! Who doesn't like cozy blankets?

Now I will enlighten you if you want, for I have gobs and gobs of expertise and I can assure you you're wrong about pretty much everything where morality is concerned. But it will be very unpleasant for you - you do realize this?

I agree that ethics is the most important topic possible, but I'm usually wrong, as you are so eloquently illustrating. After all you are the expert. By the way, I've been looking for an expert for the longest time, someone to teach me the truth... now that I have found you, I am very excited about what I'm about to learn about from you. Plus, I really don't realize how unpleasant it will be for me, so I am all in. You seem like you possess some knowledge that no one else possesses, and I mustneeds hear it pronto. Chop chop, no time to dilly-dally missy!

I read your post, don't I feel embarrassed. :rofl:

Moral awareness, and becoming an autonomous moral agent, isn't particularly related to theism. — jorndoe

This is a great point. I would add, that for the religiously inclined, moral awareness and the concept of becoming an autonomous moral agent is a prerequisite for religion and observing the demands of one's faith, but the connection ends there. Religion and morality are as comparable as ethics and art - and philosophy weaves its way through all three.

that still doesn't make evil absolute — Merkwurdichliebe

What would it take for evil to be legitimately described as "absolute", in your opinion?

I am totally confused by this thread. What is a non-believer? Everyone believes in something and it seems dishonest to me to label someone a non-believer. Maybe that is a fair thing to do to people who do not believe in Satan and his demons, but really, doesn't honesty require defining what a person does not believe? There may be good reasons for believing in one god and not another, and good reasons for believing in Satan and his demons, but those reasons need to be spelled out and the labeling needs to be dropped because it promotes a lie. The lie that you know truth and the other does not because the labeling completely bypasses reasoning. That is a serious religious problem and a political problem.

Reason is the controlling force of the universe. You either have good reasoning or you don't. The consequences of bad reasoning are bad. That just is the way it is and not understanding that is an error in logic.

Olivier5
2.1k
that still doesn't make evil absolute
— Merkwurdichliebe

What would it take for evil to be legitimately described as "absolute", in your opinion? — Olivier5

What is evil? Is the plague evil or the will of God? Are the Mongols evil or did God send them to punish us? Why are the Muslims winning wars with Christians? Quick determine what the evil is and what we must do to avoid the wrath of God or we are all doomed.